Jackie Robinson, or The Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything

Despite the pretentious title, this blog post actually has nothing to do with baseball or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But the two things both tie in with the number 42, which is a component of this entry's content.

Several months ago, I decided that I should finally hunker down and start making an effort to watch all the movies on the American Film Institute's list of "the 100 greatest American movies of all time" (hereafter referred to by me simply as "AFI's Top 100"). In the past I would occasionally give the list a once over and see how many I had seen and how many more I had NOT seen, but it didn't get much further than that. Realizing that method meant I still had seen less than half of them (a dismal 38 in total), I made it a goal to start watching them in earnest and am now up to a whopping 42 in total. Hey, progress is progress, no matter how slow it is...

Since one of my problems with the list is that for some of the movies, I cannot recall if I actually did see them in their entirety or not, I also made a decision to write up a quick review of each movie after watching it and will be posting those here, probably in batches of three or four movie reviews at a time.

Without any further ado, here are my random thoughts on the first four movies I've intentionally watched just for being on AFI's Top 100 list. (FYI, there really is no order to the way I am watching the movies from the list; it's whatever happens to be accessible at the time.)

Easy Rider
(released 1969, #88 of 100)

What a start to this project; this movie was practically unwatchable. I know it has its fans, but I am certainly not one of them, nor was my friend who watched it with me. It's as if Kenneth Anger made Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and then amped up the trippy factor by about a thousand.

This movie opens with dullest drug deal scene ever depicted (and that’s saying a lot) before two guys embark on a road trip across America for Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Along the way, they cross paths with some unusual characters from hippies to bigots to farmers. I would have loved to hear more about the women they encounter and their lives, but this is a "bro" sort of movie so that would never happen.

The movie starts out with some rather weird cinematography choices that only get weirder as the movie progresses (and as the characters get higher from all the cocaine and other drugs they are doing). All along the "plot" is slow moving, the dialogue is mostly rather poor and uninteresting, and there is literally zero character development. On top of that all, the ending is really bizarre to the point that my friend and I were both kind of like 'was that the end? what were they even trying to say with this movie???' This may have been the movie I did the most research on after watching it, because it was absolutely puzzling to me what its purpose was or why it was on AFI's Top 100 list. While I do enjoy when I read or watch something that has so many layers that a critical analysis might help me learn more, a film should stand up well enough on its own that you don't have to see what critics are saying in order to "get it." (And quite frankly, it still doesn't seem like there was much to "get.")

The handful of highlights were good music to fill the soundtrack while the guys ride along the highways and byways, which then of course included some nice shots of American landscapes (mostly deserts but also some small towns in Louisiana). The very earnest definition of the slang version of the word "dude" (I guess it was still new enough in 1969?) was humorous. And finally, the real star of the movie was a very young Jack Nicholson, who put in a stellar performance as the day-drunk ACLU lawyer, a role fittingly quirky enough for him. I have to agree with The New York Times critic whose review of the movie at its release noted, "Nicholson is so good, in fact, that 'Easy Rider' never quite recovers from his loss." I am resigned to the fact that I will never understand why this movie is on AFI's Top 100 list.


The Third Man
(released 1950, #57 of 100)

Thankfully, AFI's Top 100 list quickly redeemed itself with this selection. This is the kind of movie that I really enjoy -- an older noir film that immediately grabs you and is compelling from start to finish.

This movie takes place in Vienna after World War II, with the main character looking into the mystery of a friend's death, supposedly an accident but surrounded by a few pesky details that just don't add up -- including the rumor of a third man at the site of the accident but not listed in the official report. There is definitely a lot of intrigue, with every character having some piece of the mystery but refusing to reveal more.

The ambiance of the film throughout is wonderful. Filmed in black and white, it plays with lighting and shadows. There are long shots, unusual angles, and other cinematography reminiscent of Citizen Kane (not surprising, considering Orson Welles was associated with both projects). The dark lighting and unusual camera angles add to the sense of unease the film is trying to portray for its main character, especially when coupled with some dialogue in untranslated German (unless you happen to understand German, it further solidifies your sense of unknowing). There are several scenes of characters running around Vienna's cobblestone streets, complete with echoey footsteps, which further adds to the mysterious tone.

But the movie isn't all seriousness at all times. There are little jokes here and there, and throughout the movie, a jaunty jazzy tune plays its soundtrack. This fun instrumental music is all played on the zither, which is an unique choice that made a distinct impact. The storyline also has a romantic subplot underneath all the mystery and intrigue. Joseph Cotton as the protagonist put in an A+ performance. Alida Valli as Anna was also excellent as were some of the supporting cast (some others of the supporting cast were a little too campy, e.g., the fellow with the dog).

Overall, this was definitely an enjoyable film and I could see why it was on the list. (A fun side note -- there is actually a small curiosity museum in Vienna dedicated specifically to this film.) Those who like film noir mysteries and/or spy-type thrillers would probably enjoy this one.


The Apartment 
(released 1960, #93 of 100)

Like The Third Man, this movie is one I'm surprised I hadn't watched before actually, given it's up my alley of movies from the late 40s to early 60s. Once the opening credits showed Billy Wilder's name, I knew I was in for a treat; there’s a reason he was referred to as "the world's greatest movie director."

The Apartment has many similarities with Wilder's other movies, including elements such as:

• a voice-over introduction (but further narration is never heard),
• a New York City setting,
• a perfectly fitting instrumental soundtrack,
• snappy dialogue,
• black and white filming despite color being available,
• an overall comic tone but serious at turns, and
• issues like infidelity and suicide that can't exactly be shown on the screen (in 1960) but which are nevertheless artfully portrayed.

However, this movie has a rather different storyline from the other Wilder films I've seen in the past. A hard-working, ambitious accountant nicknamed Bud wants to succeed at his corporate life insurance job and therefore finds himself trying to curry favors with the higher-up suits. Unfortunately, the favor these men want the most from him is use of his apartment to carry on their extramarital trysts. Things only devolve further when the top boss finds out about this and wants to meet his mistress there -- a woman whom Bud has secretly had a crush on himself.

The late 50s/60s corporate culture highlighted in this film might make it of interest to fans of Mad Men, with similar explorations of gender, sex, power, and money, although with a far less serious tone. This movie has excellent performances from Jack Lemmon (indeed, he carries many scenes where it’s just him puttering around the apartment alone with no dialogue or only some mutterings to himself) as well as from Shirley MacLaine and Fred MacMurray. The happy ending feels a little tacked on / rushed, but otherwise this was an engaging watch. This wasn't my favorite movie of all time (it's not even my favorite Billy Wilder comedy; Sabrina tops that list, followed by Some Like It Hot) but it's a solid addition to AFI's Top 100 list.


Fargo 
(released 1996; #84 of 100)

This movie I went into expecting NOT to like, especially because I disliked the only other two Coen brothers' movies I had previously seen (The Big Lebowski and Intolerable Cruelty). While quirky movies hold a special place in my heart, the Coen brothers tend to operate in a zone of oddness that just isn't my cup of tea. However, this movie turned out to be weird in an acceptable sort of way for me.

The movie takes place in the dead of winter in Minnesota and North Dakota, where a car salesman with ambition pays a couple of criminals to kidnap his wife so that his wealthy father-in-law will pay the ransom. The trio assume no one will be the wiser and they will all walk away a little richer. But, of course, Murphy's law comes into play and things quickly escalate from bad to worse.

Despite the film's opening screen-cap claiming to be "based on true story," this is a work of fiction. But it is not outside the realm of possibility, which does give the film's absurdity a ring of truth. The actors in the movie -- from the leads to the supports -- are all excellent in their roles. The repartee between the two criminals, played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare, is definitely a highlight of the film, along with Frances McDormand's award-winning performance as the police chief working to catch them. And, William H. Macy is almost *too* good as the slimy salesman, convincing me 100 percent to hate that character.

Despite the violence at the heart of the movie, it really isn't overly gory (especially in light of what's considered acceptable in film and television today). Also, McDormand's character is a refreshingly independent and strong woman, which had been missing in the other three films reviewed above. (The Third Man and The Apartment get points for at least featuring women more so than Easy Rider, but they're not exactly going to be held up as feminist standards. I'm not doing the statistical breakdown because that's more effort than I want to put into this project, but I wouldn't be surprised to see if a great number of the movies on AFI's Top 100 list are unable to pass the Bechdel Test.) Also, the one Asian character seen in the movie is surprisingly not just stereotype after stereotype, which is sadly saying a lot for 1996. (Unfortunately, the one American Indian character in the movie doesn't quite pass the same low bar. His character is way too much the strong, silent, proud 'native' stereotype -- his last name is even Proudfoot.)

That all being said, I cannot see this being a movie I would purposefully view again, nor do I have any interest in watching the new series of the same name. However, I do understand why it made the list, if for no other reason than that it's a movie that is often referenced in pop culture.

***

Well, that's all for now folks. Catch up with you again when I have a few more movie reviews to add.

Don't Trust a, Never Trust a

This may not be something I've addressed before on this blog, but this post needs this preface: I am not a fan of sitcoms. Sure, I've turned to the random episode of Will & Grace for background noise when nothing else half-way decent is on, I watched re-runs of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air in college because it was always on in the cafeteria during lunch time, I've seen a ton of Friends episodes simply because the show was unavoidable in the late 90s/early 2000s no matter how clichéd it became, I even tried to like How I Met Your Mother because so many people I know absolutely love it, but I never really enjoy sitcoms as a whole. In general, they rely too much on the slapstick, characters that are more caricature than anything else, and running gags that become so predictable that gag really is the word to describe them. ("We were on a break!" isn't that funny to begin with; as a recurring refrain it's irritating more than anything else.) When I see a joke coming a mile off, I'm no longer interested. And if you need a laugh track to tell your audience that something's funny, I'm out of there. The one notable exception over the years was Scrubs (side note: I have a long blog post in the wings on that show) because it always took things to weird and unexpected places and could make me laugh like no other sitcom.

So without sitcoms as a comedic fall-back, I try to lighten my load of largely dramatic entertainment (whether it be TV, movies, or books) with dramedies like my beloved Gilmore Girls or the weird hybrid cop procedural-comedy that USA offered/offers with Monk and Psych. But with two of those shows off the air and one winding down, it's getting harder to find something to watch that I haven't seen a hundred times before. My other laughs come from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report and while the writers for those shows can certainly make comedic gold out of straw, when the straw is the real-life news of broken and corrupt government systems and officials, gross income inequality, corporate greed, and racial injustice, sometimes the end result is that I feel more depressed about the world we live in.

Cue me needing a break from all the bleakness and scrolling through what Netflix is offering up as popular these days. Lo and behold, I come across Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. I shrug my shoulders and say, 'what the hey, why don't I give an episode or two a try? It'll probably be stupid but might as well find out for myself.' Then find me finding the show surprisingly interesting and watching all the episodes in a handful of days. (Yes, I am a binge TV watcher. But the show also had only two seasons with a total of 26 episodes before being canceled. Because if a show is a little bit different than the standard fare and a tad quirky and enjoyed by me, then of course it's not going to make it for long when competing with inane comedies, increasingly absurd "reality" TV shows, and whatever other formulaic shows are being offered up by mainstream networks.)

So what's this show about, you ask? Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 opens with perky blonde Midwesterner June landing a dream job on Wall Street complete with relocation costs covered and a gorgeous company-owned apartment for living quarters. It seems too good to be true - and it is, for the company is immediately in shambles when accusations of corporate malfeasance arise. June is out of the street with no place to live or work in a hostile city where she knows no one except Mark, her would-be mentor on Wall Street whom she's met only briefly. But Mark pulls through, landing them both jobs at a local coffee shop (it's not glamorous, but it's a paycheck). Meanwhile, June looks for a roommate and thinks she finds the perfect one in Chloe, despite the cryptic warning from a neighbor: "Don't trust the bitch in apartment 23!" It turns out Chloe is running a scam in which she overcharges the renter, demands three months' worth of rent, and then drives her roommate so crazy that they leave almost instantly. But June finds out about the scam, hangs on through the craziness, and thus begins a beautiful - albeit sometimes dysfunctional - friendship between two very opposite women. Naïve and friendly June is always trying to do the right thing while morally ambiguous Chloe is constantly engaging in some new deception, although sometimes with motives that seem at least partially honorable.

In addition to the Odd Couple pairing of the two roommates, the show rounds out the cast with a number of regulars. There's Mark who becomes June's close friend as well as manager; Robin the neighbor who's obsessed with Chloe and a former victim of her roommate scam (don't think about the second part too much because yeah, the writers weren't thinking that factoid through when they threw it into the show); Eli the creepy pervert neighbor who surprisingly has good advice at times; Chloe's BFF, the sensitive actor James Van Der Beek; and James's flamboyant personal assistant Luther. Other semi-regulars on the show including the parents of both Chloe and June as well as co-workers, various love interests, and June's spiritual adviser Pastor Jin.

Some of the pros of the show (in no particular order) include:
- Non-chronological storytelling done well. The episodes frequently begin with the ending - some weird situation that seems completely random and often out of sync with the narration from June, but we eventually see how events lead up to this situation and why June might be saying something to the likes of "I have the best roommate ever" while Chloe is swinging at her. This kind of out of sorts storytelling isn't uncommon for dramas but it's rarer to see it in a sitcom - and even less likely to be done effectively. There are also fun quick flash backs/flash forwards/brief imagined scenarios scattered throughout, which keep the pace lively and remind me of some of the best parts of Scrubs as well.
- Unpredictable plot lines and twists. Unlike the standard fare for a sitcom, I don't see the jokes coming and I can't tell where the storyline is going. I am 100% sucked in to each episode because I really have no idea what to expect next. The writers are not afraid to go down the rabbit hole or introduce situations that are stranger than the average viewer would imagine.
- The absurdity of the situations presented. Some sitcoms choose to find comedy in the everyday routines of life - workplace woes, dating disasters, children's mishaps, etc. - but others choose to go to the other extreme and show us lives vastly different than our own. I like both kinds of comedies, but only provided that they are well done (which, as I believe I've made clear, most sitcoms do not do). Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 goes for the latter option, with characters who party all the time, hang with celebrities, and get mixed up in scams for either money or pranks. This is certainly entertainment that provides relief from the everyday problems we all face from time to time. When watching Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, it's unlikely that a situation will occur that makes you start thinking about office politics, sitting in traffic, housework piling up, etc. For those 20-odd minutes while you're watching an episode, you are completely sucked into this world and not worrying about yours.
- Lots of random references to all kinds of things, with a huge helping of pop culture ones (some I had to look up) in the mix. I love when shows do this.
- Diversity in the cast. The show is set in New York City, one of the epicenters of the racial and ethnic melting pot that is this country, so it's only fitting that the characters be of various backgrounds and not just a bunch of middle-class Caucasians like in some shows (::cough:: Friends ::cough::).
- Quirky and interesting characters that are both unusual for TV and slightly more developed than the typical comedy caricature. Again, the writers were fearless - in this case, having no compunction with creating characters that wouldn't be likeable.

• Chloe borders on sociopathic with her party life of instant gratification and various cons to get what she wants, regardless of whether it's lying to strangers at bars to get free drinks or tricking June into causing a scene at a family Thanksgiving dinner so it's not Chloe ruining the holiday for a change. Yet at the end of each episode, you feel compelled to view on and see what antics Chloe will come up with next. On a couple of occasions, I even found myself rooting for Chloe to get what she wanted in that episode. And her character is so unpredictable that she really makes the show interesting and varied. I found myself sitting and thinking, 'oh, Chloe is becoming a deeper person and she's revealing something personal about herself,' only to be fooled by another of her games. Yet there are certainly times when Chloe does grow as a person so her character is never by any means static. But even when her intentions are good, Chloe goes about things in her own twisted way ...
• June may the moral center of the show (as well as its narrator) but that doesn't mean she's always the most likeable one. Sometimes her naivety and worldview can be as annoying as they are endearing. In the early episodes, her obsession with following her life plan to be settled down rankled me. (You think you eventually want to get married and have children? Fine. You set a time table for when each of these important life events must occur? Don't even get me started. I've met people like this in real life. They're not fun to be around.) But June also grows and changes as a character, working to shed parts of herself that are too rigid and learning to allow some spontaneity to spice up her life while still following her dreams.
• Eli is the perfect example of not being afraid to go there. His character is introduced as the crudest of perverts, always looking out his window and into the girls' apartment (and I won't go further into describing his behavior). But despite it all, his character morphs from one I absolutely detested to someone who becomes a half-way decent person. Sure, he's still constantly at his window by season two but now he's giving helpful advice rather than leering.
• Having James Van Der Beek play James Van Der Beek = brilliant. I was never a Dawson's Creek fan and I can't recall seeing Van Der Beek in anything other than his special guest appearance as a killer with dissociative identity disorder on a two-part episode of Criminal Minds, so I had no idea if he would do well in a comedy. Well, I absolutely love him here. The fictionalized version of himself is full of comic gold as he obsesses over being a celebrity dancer on Dancing with the Stars, wonders why he's never been nominated for People's Sexiest Man Alive, or even just holds an anti-scary Halloween party. Having Chloe hobnob with a celebrity BFF also allows for a variety of guest stars to pop up without it feeling forced. Of course, Busy Philipps might just show up in an episode because she is a former co-star after all. (Incidentally, the diner where James and Busy meet looks oddly similar to the Royal Diner in Bones, a completely different kind of show on another network all together. Did anyone else notice a similarity?) These kinds of random appearances work much better in this fictionalized world than in other TV shows where a guest star has to be crammed into a script in some weird way requiring contortionist feats in order to make any kind of sense.
• Mark is the character that is the most difficult for me to wrap my head around. He certainly serves many functions - June's boss as well as her confidante, potential suitor for both girls, and occasional adversarial friend to James as well - but his role seems the least well defined. Mark is the closest to the "nice guy"/normal character you'll see in this show, although he is certainly not the straight man of the typical comedy routine. He has his own quirks and quips throughout the show; however, sometimes his lines/jokes are the most out of the blue and therefore occasionally less funny. At times his character can be very serious, pushing the other characters to a realization about themselves or their current situation, while other times he just comes across as incredibly goofy. Mark is definitely the most difficult character to peg. Of course, this also means that he can come across as the most "real" character, for people in real life tend to be a mixed bag of all sorts of different things.
• Robin is introduced as "in love with" Chloe, but it's never really clear what exactly that entails. She is not necessarily a lesbian (or not exclusively one at least, for she is depicted on one occasion as enthralled in a non-platonic way by James as Dawson). Despite the claim of love for Chloe, at times Robin actually seems irritated by or angry with Chloe. Mostly it seems like she's enamored of Chloe's lifestyle and just wants to be let into that inner circle, thinking that being Chloe's friend will make her instantaneously cool. To that end, she is more than willing to do things like pick up Chloe's mail, stock her fridge with food, or borrow a limo from a cousin in order to haul Chloe and her friends up to the Hamptons for a weekend. Therefore, Robin pops up at random times under unusual circumstances. Again, though, she is like a real person in that her motivations are murky (perhaps even to herself) and hard to pin down. Liza Lapira really rocks this role, as she does in any other bit part I've seen her in before whether it's the fledging agent Michelle on NCIS or the eye-rolling, thinks-she's-better-than-anyone-else-present swim class student in The Big Bad Swim. The only real downside with Robin was that by the second season, we were seeing her show up in apartment 23 less often.
• Luther is the most unfortunately caricatured character on the show. He is the quintessential effeminate fashionista homosexual sidekick who looks at Chloe as though she is the enemy he'd most like to "bitch slap" rather than allow her to have more influence over James than he has. (Sadly for him, he usually loses when it comes to gaining James's affinity.) Luther is certainly a funny addition to the cast and has some real zingers, but he is the character that seems most like, well, a character.
• The parents are always fun when they pop up. June skypes with her parents regularly with mom usually taking the forefront; she ends up becoming an adviser to James on his career in general but in particular with regard to Dancing with the Stars. Chloe's parents have a strained relationship that helps to explain her own dysfunction; as characters, they add hilarity and absurdity to any situation. Whenever Chloe's parents are going to be on an episode, you know you're going to end up with some sort of ridiculousness going down.
• Pastor Jin is the leader of the Korean church that June feels is a fitting community for her Midwestern values. Pastor Jin, however, is far more liberal than the stereotypical reverend, which ends up feeling fitting with the June that evolves on the show.

Of course, no show is perfect and there are some cons to Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23:
- Chloe's questionable morals and scams can sometimes cross a line. Yes, I understand that part of her character is that she pushes the limits, but there are some things that seem over the top. Chloe sleeping around with married men is something many of us would not condone, but it's not an unheard of thing by any stretch of the imagination. But it's completely unnecessary for Chloe to offhandedly remark that "Tranq sex is consensual." in an episode uses a tranquilizer gun as part of the plot. Joking about the heinous crime of rape just isn't funny. (Ask Daniel Tosh about the blowback on that mistake.)
- Likewise, there are other lines/situations that perhaps stretch/blur common taste. In one episode, James comes to the realization that an old acting coach behaved inappropriately with him. Later in the episode, Mark and June dish the gossip together with Mark starting the conversation with a comment to the effect of "I think James was molested by a former acting coach." Cut to a scene of Van Der Beek sitting alone on a stoop in his underwear looking deep in thought and upset. After a few moments, he get up, states that he is okay, and walks away. Again, making jokes about something like the sexual molestation of a teenaged boy = not funny. It's a real crime and its victims don't just shake it off after a few minutes sitting thoughtfully. Comedy walks a fine line between being funny and just being insulting/offensive. It's not just the writers of Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 who seem to have a bit of difficulty navigating that line; all comics seem to falter from time to time. Luckily these kinds of moments are rare in this show and most of the funny bits are actually funny.
- There were two episodes in season 1 ("The Leak" and "Parent Trap") that fell a little flat. They were not bad episodes but they were a little disappointing compared to the high caliber of the rest of the show. It's unfortunate to have two relative duds early on in a show, especially given how easily the networks seem to be giving up on shows lately.
- The title of the show is off-putting. There are some people who were probably turned off by the use of profanity in the title; however, if they are that squeamish, this show isn't for them anyway. The reason I found the title inappropriate was that it told me little to nothing about the content of the show. It also puts the emphasis on Chloe when the show is really about the two women and their relationship with/influence over each other as well as relying heavily on the supporting cast for situations, comedic effect, and character development. And, the title gave the impression that it wouldn't be a show with (arguably) positive portrayals of women as multi-layered people with many different motivations but rather one that resorted to name-calling in the worse way. Sandy Cohen of The Associated Press delves more deeply into the implications of putting the word "bitch" in the title of a TV show with this article.
- And, of course, the biggest con of all is that the show ended far too soon. With only two seasons under its belt, Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 definitely still had a lot of territory to explore. Chloe's crazy antics could only be hampered by the writers' imagination; June and Mark might continue to work through their feelings for each other; Luther's novel could have been picked up by a publisher; and James might continue his quest to find his real father. The final episode of season two (which ended up being the series finale) also introduced the possibility of Chloe and June taking their friendship to a new level beyond the shallow end of the pool as Chloe finally began to open up about her real feelings and thoughts. And since I could so rarely predict where the show was going to go at any given moment, there's no way I could predict where it would have gone if the writers were given more seasons to develop these characters and find new situations for them.

While I don't think I'll ever find another comedy I'll like as much Scrubs, which I still find incredibly and ridiculously funny even after having seen almost every episode multiple times now, I was pleasantly surprised with Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. If you don't mind watching something with unlikeable - albeit quirky and fun in their own way - characters, you might just find yourself laughing along if you give the show a try also.

Laila’s Birthday: A Celebration of Absurdity?

Laila’s Birthday is a 2008 film set in Palestine that follows one day in the life of Abu Laila, a former judge who now drives a taxi cab for a living. This particular day is no ordinary day though – it is the seventh birthday of his only child, his daughter Laila. All Abu Laila wants to do is put in a day’s work, pick up a present and cake for his daughter, and arrive back home by 8 pm. But fate is not on Abu Laila’s side. After starting his day off with his usual Kafka-esque exercise in absurdity by visiting the Ministry of Justice in a feeble attempt to bring his judicial nomination up sooner, Abu Laila’s day gets worse when a customer leaves behind his cell phone in the taxi cab’s backseat. In a classic turn of “no good deed goes unpunished,” Abu Laila finds himself getting into all kinds of situations, as he puts it, in his attempt to return the cell phone to its rightful owner. Will he be able to make it back home in one piece in time for Laila’s birthday?

I’m not sure now how it is that I heard about Laila’s Birthday, but somehow its existence came into my knowledge in the past few weeks. I immediately watched the trailer for the movie and decided I had to watch the whole movie. The trailer seemed to promise a film filled with absurdly comic scenarios – just the kind of situational comedy that I find particularly funny. While this is certainly true at many points, the movie is also profoundly sad at times. Consider Abu Laila’s words when he snaps at one point and yells out in helpless frustration at the helicopters overhead: “And you…! Leave us alone!!! Leave us in peace!!! Leave us our breath!!! Leave us our rest!!! We know you have planes, tanks and very smart missiles.  You are the toughest occupiers in the world!!! But we, we want to live. We want to raise our children. We want to sleep. … We just want to live. Simply that. Just that.” But the beat marches on, and wars and occupiers continue to exist the world over, ad infinitum.

As the quote above suggests, the movie is of course laden with political overtones scattered throughout. No doubt it is difficult to write and produce a film set in present-day Palestine without doing so. As Abu Laila’s drives his taxi throughout the city, we hear political news on the radio and see protestors out in the streets. Some of these political situations are particularly poignant. For instance, one couple nearly jumps out of Abu Laila’s taxi when they see a line forming because, they reason, a line must mean someone is giving away some food or other necessary items. Later, a missile drops across the street from where Abu Laila is, and the aftermath is chaotic.

On the other hand, one moment that had me chuckle aloud was when a group of men in the café, eager to condemn what a mess the occupation is making off their country, argue over whether the military officers they are watching on a newsreel are Israeli or Palestinian before someone shouts out: “It’s Iraq. And the army is American.”

Abu Laila’s politics also shine through as the movie progresses, and he refuses to bring passengers to checkpoints or take riders who are armed. He is persnickety in other ways also and, as a former judge, is a stickler for the law. He argues with one passenger about wearing a seat belt and asks another not to smoke, citing legal foundations for both requests.

As a slice of life kind of movie, we unfortunately don’t get a lot of Abu Laila’s back story, although we get enough to understand his frustration and sense of both righteous indignation and helplessness as he tries to navigate this new life he has. Another serious pitfall, in my opinion, is that the roles of Abu Laila’s wife and daughter are sidelined. Their appearances bookend the movie, but they have few lines or compelling characterizations. Instead, they function as the Victorian model of females as “the light of the home” – a home where men go to escape the hustle and bustle of the manly world of business and instead relax in the innocence of this womanly world of domesticity. This is perhaps somewhat hyperbolic in this particular situation as we are at least informed that Laila goes to school and his wife goes to work, although no further details are given about either’s daily routines.

What we do get to see a lot of, however, are city scenes as Abu Laila is out and about driving his taxi. The various landscapes show us a beautiful country (occupied territory) that has been battered by numerous problems, including military occupation and economic hardship, and is worse for the wear.

Still, despite all the chaos, the movie manages to end on a somewhat hopeful note, although its final line can also be interpreted as defeatist. I suppose how you take it all depends on whether you are glass half-empty or glass half-full kind of person (or what kind of day you’ve had). For better or worse, the feeling you leave with is that people are people everywhere, all of us with hopes and concerns that face us each day.

Laila’s Birthday was not a big blockbuster hit like all the summer movies recently out or on the horizon, but it’s certainly not a film to be missed. It is an absorbing movie, and you will be enriched by seeing it.